Upper limb and hand function training and FES may be provided to improve hand function in people with tetraplegia
| Upper limb and hand function training and FES (v no intervention) on hand function in people with tetraplegia | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | People with tetraplegia | Evidence recommendation No evidence recommendation Reason: No recommendation due to insufficient or inconclusive evidence. | Weak opinion statement FOR Upper limb and hand function training and FES may be provided to improve hand function in people with tetraplegia. |
||||
| I | Upper limb and hand function training and FES | ||||||
| C | No intervention | Consensus-based opinion statement Weak for (96%) |
|||||
| O | Upper limb and hand function | ||||||
| SUMMARY | 2 RCTs | Standardised mean difference (95% CI) 0.2 (-0.3 to 0.8) Favours hand training with FES |
|||||
| GRADE Very low certainty ⨁◯◯◯ | Risk of bias Very serious | Inconsistency No serious | Imprecision Very serious | Indirectness No serious | Publication bias Serious |
||
![]() |
|||||||
| UPPER LIMB AND HAND FUNCTION TRAINING PLUS FES ON UPPER LIMB AND HAND FUNCTION: GRADE Evidence to Decision | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROBLEM | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
| DESIRABLE EFFECTS | Trivial | Small | Moderate | Large | Don't know | |
| UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS | Large | Moderate | Small | Trivial | Don't know | |
| CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | No included studies | |
| HOW MUCH PEOPLE VALUE THE MAIN OUTCOME | Important uncertainty or variability | Possibly important uncertainty or variability | Probably no important uncertainty or variability | No important uncertainty or variability | ||
| BALANCE OF EFFECTS | Favours the Control | Probably favours the Control | Does not favour either the intervention (I) or the comparison (C) | Probably favours the I | Favours the I | Don't know |
| RESOURCES REQUIRED | Large costs | Moderate costs | Negligible costs and savings | Moderate savings | Large savings | Don't know |
| CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE OF REQUIRED RESOURCES | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | No included studies | |
| COST EFFECTIVENESS | Favours the comparison | Probably favours the comparison | Does not favour either the intervention or the comparison | Probably favours the intervention | Favours the intervention | No included studies |
| EQUITY | Reduced | Probably reduced | Probably no impact | Probably increased | Increased | Don't know |
| ACCEPTABILITY | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
| FEASIBILITY | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
| UPPER LIMB AND HAND FUNCTION TRAINING PLUS FES ON UPPER LIMB AND HAND FUNCTION: Randomised Controlled Trial Details | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STUDY | COMPARISON | DOSAGE/DETAILS | PARTICIPANTS | N (Rx/C) | OUTCOME | ROB 2 PEDRo |
| HARVEY 2017 | Hand training plus FES (plus usual care) V Usual care | 1 hour per day, 5 days per week for 8 weeks. | C2-T1 tetraplegia | 35/31 | Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) | Low Risk of Bias PEDro = 8/10 |
| HOFFMAN 2013 | Hand training plus FES V No intervention | 5 x per week, 2 hours per day, for 3 weeks. | Chronic tetraplegia | 10/9 | Jebsen Hand function test | High Risk of Bias PEDro = 3/10 |
The Australian and NZ SCI Physiotherapy guideline committee recommends upper limb and hand function training and FES to improve hand function in people with tetraplegia.
This is a consensus-based opinion statement supported by the opinions of the experts even though there is one randomised controlled trial related to this topic. However, the result of this randomised controlled trial is inconclusive preventing an evidence recommendation. The guideline states:
Upper limb and hand function training and FES may be provided to improve hand function in people with tetraplegia.
This statement was formed by considering the opinions of the experts alongside other factors. The other factors that were considered were benefits and harms, values and preferences, resource use, equity, accessibility, and feasibility. The results of one randomised controlled trial was also taken into consideration. This is a consensus-based opinion statement. Consensus-based opinion statements are less robust than evidence-based recommendations. They can be strong or weak.
This is a strong consensus-based opinion statement which means that the guideline panel is confident they can recommend upper limb and hand function training and FES to improve hand function in people with tetraplegia based on opinion.
To learn more about the research related to this intervention go to the research summary.
-
Hoffman L F-FE. Effects of practice combined with somatosensory or motor stimulation on hand function in persons with spinal Cord Injury. Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation 2013; 19: 288.
-
Harvey LA, Dunlop SA, Churilov L, et al. Early intensive hand rehabilitation is not more effective than usual care plus one-to-one hand therapy in people with sub-acute spinal cord injury ('Hands On'): a randomised trial. Journal of physiotherapy 2017; 63: 197-204.
